How can SONY overtake the Panasonic HVX200

[John M Burkhart]

Well, looks like they've already announced for IBC:

Link Here: http://hugecgi.com/cgi-bin/ibc_daily...=22621&issue=2

From the article:

Not shipping till next year :(

"From pricing, quality and feature set perspectives we are positioning XDCAM HD between HDCAM and HDV,"

18, 25(HDV), 35 Mbps Mpeg2 encoding formats: (giving 2hours, 90 min, 60 min recording time per disc)

records DV also

4 channel uncompressed audio

Camera has 1/2" CCDs

No price info yet :(

[John Poore]

The Marines using XDCAMS and Z1's as 'combat cams'. Now that does say a lot, Sony cameras are tough! I know the BBC and some agencies at one stage in Iraq were handing out PD 150's to local civillians to take pictures of assorted scenes that no one wanted to cover because they were to dangerous.


I am excited by the sound of XDCAM HD. It is a good idea, anyone know how much the cams will cost, as much as the current XD's? And will they use 4:2:2 colour?

[Steve Crisdale]

Actually, Hans got the title of the thread the wrong way around.

His premise was that Panasonic has already produced a camera that has features that have already shaded Sony's HD/HDV products is flawed.

That such a premise is based on a misconception is hard to deny.

As things' stand at this point in time:

a) Sony has already had it's products in the marketplace, building up an enviable user base, that JVC was unable to achieve with it's initial HDV offering - despite a 12 month head start.

b) Full software support for Sony and JVC HDV camcorders, that has had enough lead time to be reaching maturity and stability, with cost effective and manageable workflows and hardware solutions.

Panasonic's HVX200 is in actual fact going to face an up-hill battle to compete with Sony's already established position with affordable HD. I'm sure Panasonic isn't truly thinking of the HVX200 as a competitor to Sony's HDV camcorders. I'll be surprised if they aren't hoping for a less 'democratic' sector of the market place to see their offering as 'superior'. Broadcasters for instance...

To imply that Panasonic; with an unreleased and unproven product, is already ahead of where Sony currently is, will hopefully be rewarded by Panasonic for sheer faith. Perhaps Hans is pitching for a complimentary HVX200 as reward for showing such a profound level of brand committment.

[Shawn Redford]

There's a couple photos of the HD XDCAM shown here:
http://homepage.mac.com/mikedcurtis/PhotoAlbum44.html

It looks like a much bigger unit than the FX1/Z1.

[John Poore]

The Panasonic HVX with all its P2 issues has one big plus and that is DVPro HD in a small and relatively cheap camera,
DVPro HD has been a common broadcast standard in program making for a while now. It's accepted by all major broadcasters, hd or sd. HDV on the other hand..

[Hans ter Lingen]

The HD XDcam is shoulder cam and has bigger CCD's, so another leage than the HVX200. Don't compare apples with ..........

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Hans ter Lingen

Don't compare apples with ..........

.....lemons?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

.....lemons?

I believe the 'correct' answer is "PC" :-)

[Jaime Valles]

Originally Posted by John Poore

The Panasonic HVX with all its P2 issues has one big plus and that is DVPro HD in a small and relatively cheap camera,
DVPro HD has been a common broadcast standard in program making for a while now. It's accepted by all major broadcasters, hd or sd. HDV on the other hand..

What P2 issues? If you're a filmmaker, all you need is the $6000 HVX200 and a 4GB P2 card (probably around $750 right now). That's $6750-$7000 total. You don't need a laptop. At all. You use a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive, plug it in to the HVX, and dump the footage directly from the P2 card into the drive. No laptop required. Since you're only recording 4GB at a time, it'll take less than 4 minutes to do the dump to hard disk via USB2. Less than 4 minutes.

So, let's see... with the HVX you (as an independent filmmaker) can record in 1080/24p in DVCProHD on a 4GB P2 card and dump to cheap USB2 hard disks, with no need to digitize footage, and no dropouts, ready to edit as soon as the USB2 drive is plugged into the desktop. All for less than $7000.

With the Z1 (or HD100) you capture in 1080/60i HDV, or 720/24p ProHD to $5 MiniDV tapes (with the potential for bad dropouts), and then you have to spend the hours digitizing the footage onto internal or external hard disks. The footage will be less quality because it's HDV, as opposed to full-blown DVCProHD, and lower resolution, because neither the Z1 or HD100 can do 1080/24p.

The choice (for a filmmaker on a budget) is, to me, obvious.

"But I shoot long events/weddings/concerts and I can't take time to dump to disk while shooting".

You don't have to. Get a Firestore, and record to your heart's content.

"But the HD100 has a direct-to-disk solution so I don't have to digitize footage"

If you're willing to spend the money on a direct-to-disk device for the JVC, you can also spend it for the HVX. Apples to apples.

"But how will you deliver HVX footage to your clients?"

Same way you'll deliver HDV footage to your clients: Downconvert to SD, Broadcast in HD, or wait until Blu-Ray / HD-DVD drives take off.

"But the HD100 has interchangeable lenses!"

How many people will actually change the lens on the HD100? You can get the 13x HD lens for another $6000, or other 1/2" lenses for even more money. I think most will keep the stock lens, so the interchangeability issue is moot.

"But the Z1 can be converted to 24p with software"

Yep. And you'll lose a LOT of resolution in the process.

"But independent filmmaking is a niche segment, and the HDV cameras appeal to a much broader segment of the market"

Sure. Is that why the DVX has sold so poorly?


All this is, of course, based on the info Panasonic has released about the camera, and not on actual footage or usage. But if I were planning on making indie films, I certainly wouldn't get a camera now if I could wait for the HVX.

Back on topic: For Sony to overtake the HVX, it would have to release an XDCAM HD camera that costs LESS than $10,000. I don't think they're going to do that anytime soon.

[John Poore]

This has been debated a lot, but a 4GB card is just not going to cut it. When I am shooting, I do about an hour a day, maybe up to 2 hours. So I'll be needing a bit more than 4GB's, plus then some safety, not to mention the time to download it all and the money to afford to store that 1 - 2 hours of DVPROHD on daily basis. Also at least with tape you don't have potential transfer issues to other devices, once on tape it's locked and safe, in my pocket.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Jaime Valles

All this is, of course, based on the info Panasonic has released about the camera, and not on actual footage or usage.

That's really the key, isn't it? Nobody has one of these cameras - nobody has even seen a real one, have they? I understand that everyone is really excited by the prospects, but the fact is that nobody really knows exactly what the issues are going to be. The proof will be in the pudding and once there's a real shipping product we'll see what it's like to work with the cards, hard drives, etc.

Until then, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread and Steve echoed more recently, Sony doesn't have to "overtake" anybody. They have a whole collection of very successful shipping products.

[Kevin Shaw]

Jaime: the HVX200 will not be practical for long-form event work any time soon. By my calculations I'd need at least four 80GB Firestore drives (per camera) to record a single typical wedding in HD, at a current proposed cost of almost $2000 per drive. This means the storage alone for a single event is going to cost more than the camera itself, which is obviously a problem. Plus then as soon as you finish a shoot you have to make a point of off-loading your master data to some other storage solution so you can free up your expensive on-camera memory for the next shoot, meaning you'd better have the permanent storage ready to go and the time available to do those transfers.

To back up four 80GB Firestores you'd need a 320GB hard drive, which currently sell for $132 and up on Pricewatch. But since hard drives are notoriously unreliable you'd better make two copies if you want to ensure the integrity of your source video, so now we're up to $264 per event just to store the data. Shoot 30 wedddings per year and your permanent storage costs are again more than the price of the camera, so in the first year alone you'd be spending at least $20,000 to do one-camera weddings with the HVX200. Compare that to under $3000 for a Sony FX1 and roughly $50 per wedding for HDV tapes, and it's easy to see that HDV is going to be the preferred solution for this particular task.

Plus the best way to deliver HD video in the future is going to be on blue-laser DVDs using MPEG2 compression at bit rates of around 25-30 Mbps -- which is basically HDV. So after spending $20K to shoot weddings on an HVX200 you'll be delivering final output similar to that from HDV cameras, although the footage will hopefully be a little better due to the higher bandwidth of the source. But so far it's all most of us can do to convince event customers to pay a little extra for HDV quality, let alone paying significantly more for something else.

I like the HVX200 from a technical perspective, but not from a practical one. Maybe in another five years...

[Mark Grant]

You use a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive, plug it in to the HVX, and dump the footage directly from the P2 card into the drive.

LOL. You'll trust your master copy of your footage to... 'a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive'? Not even making a tape backup?

Have fun when that drive fails and you lose hours of footage. At least with tape you'll potentially still be able to recover 99% of the footage even if the tape snaps.

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Jaime: the HVX200 will not be practical for long-form event work any time soon. By my calculations I'd need at least four 80GB Firestore drives (per camera) to record a single typical wedding in HD, at a current proposed cost of almost $2000 per drive. This means the storage alone for a single event is going to cost more than the camera itself, which is obviously a problem. Plus then as soon as you finish a shoot you have to make a point of off-loading your master data to some other storage solution so you can free up your expensive on-camera memory for the next shoot, meaning you'd better have the permanent storage ready to go and the time available to do those transfers.

To back up four 80GB Firestores you'd need a 320GB hard drive, which currently sell for $132 and up on Pricewatch. But since hard drives are notoriously unreliable you'd better make two copies if you want to ensure the integrity of your source video, so now we're up to $264 per event just to store the data. Shoot 30 wedddings per year and your permanent storage costs are again more than the price of the camera, so in the first year alone you'd be spending at least $20,000 to do one-camera weddings with the HVX200. Compare that to under $3000 for a Sony FX1 and roughly $50 per wedding for HDV tapes, and it's easy to see that HDV is going to be the preferred solution for this particular task.

Plus the best way to deliver HD video in the future is going to be on blue-laser DVDs using MPEG2 compression at bit rates of around 25-30 Mbps -- which is basically HDV. So after spending $20K to shoot weddings on an HVX200 you'll be delivering final output similar to that from HDV cameras, although the footage will hopefully be a little better due to the higher bandwidth of the source. But so far it's all most of us can do to convince event customers to pay a little extra for HDV quality, let alone paying significantly more for something else.

I like the HVX200 from a technical perspective, but not from a practical one. Maybe in another five years...

very good post IMHO.
I think that people can get too obsessed/wrapped-up in pursuing the ultimate specification equipment but without considering too carefully the practical consequences of that. In this case, storage and distribution - points which i think you made very well above.

Hi-Def in it's various flavors is all about two or 3 things really: Compression, Storage, Distribution.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Hi-Def in it's various flavors is all about two or 3 things really: Compression, Storage, Distribution.

And Broadcast. Why does broadcast always seem to be left out of the equation? Is it because everyone knows that the best quality HD that's going to be broadcast for at least 10 years is approx. 19Mbit, with MPEG2 compression for the majority of material?

And so you get a camera that can record 50/100Mbit 1080i/p... What you gonna watch it on? Isn't likely to be your consumer model WS HDTV - unless you degrade the quality, as has already been mentioned.